# Watson v. Thibodeau

> Indiana Court of Appeals · September 20, 1990 · 559 N.E.2d 1205

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706850

## Case

- **Full name:** James WATSON and Viva Watson, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. Michael THIBODEAU and Karen Thibodeau, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 20, 1990
- **Citations:** 559 N.E.2d 1205; 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1239; 1990 WL 136731
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Conover, Miller, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706850

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the court could “cut [the pro se litigants] no slack simply because [they] have no formal legal training.”
- stating that the court could "eut [the pro se litigants] no slack simply because [they] have no formal legal training."

## Opinion text

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the assessment of attorney fees and a fine against appellants. As the majority notes, this is a case of first impression. The appellants' desire to have their case reviewed by an appellate court on an issue of which there is no Indiana precedent cannot be deemed litigating in bad faith. There is no evidence that appellants in pursuing their novel claim were affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. Young, supra. Furthermore, as the majority also notes, the appellants' pro se brief adequately presented the issues and argument. This is sufficient to preclude a finding of procedural bad faith.
As to the imposition of a fine pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 15(G), this rule provides:
"(G) Damages Against Appellant. If the court on appeal affirms the judgment, damages may be assessed in favor of the appellee not exceeding ten per cent (10%) upon the judgment, in money judgments, and in other cases in the discretion of the court; and the court shall remand such cause for execution. [Emphasis added.]"
Clearly the majority was acting without authority in assessing a $2,000.00 fine against appellants payable to the clerk's office.
I would affirm the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706850. Public record. Not legal advice.